So many poorly framed arguments but my fave is leading with "in defense of offense hacking" then ending with denigrating it.
-
-
-
Would you care to discuss it with me?
-
For a start, the piece was titled "in defense of offensive tools" not "in defense of offensive hacking".
-
How do you simultaneously dismiss notions of white and blackhat then apply those parameters to those who release vs don't in the conclusion?
-
I don't dismiss white hat & black hat. I just recognise that monochrome doesn't capture the full range of ethical and unethical behaviours.
-
It used to be a useful linguistic idiom but is increasingly useless.
-
As for the conclusion I merely ask the audience not to confuse the two. It is up to the reader to decide the ethics in their view.
-
Don't insult me with that "asking the reader to decide" nonsense.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
privacy community is bigger than that, of course (just a nit, big fan)
-
Yes, EFF is typically the problem child. I lost count of the times they chose to admonish over engage.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/darpa-cgc-safety-protocol …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@privacyint clickbaitThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Completely agree in general, but there are exceptions like Jason Shirk who left doing real security to do real privacy for a bit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Quite the SEO experiment. Every buzzword + the kitchen sink.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, I wouldn’t define
@blackswanburst someone “outclassed” quite frankly… Correct comment, wrong target.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.